Do we need knowledge advocacy for humanitarian crisis?

12 September 2017

I was fortunate to participate recently
in the Research for Health in
Humanitarian Crisis (r2hc) event in London. It brought together an
impressive range of academics and INGOs doing research designed to save lives
in the most challenging circumstances.

Here at IDS we know all about the benefits
of r2hc research funding - it was this fund that supported the Ebola Response Anthropology
Platform that back in 2015 helped to transform the humanitarian response to
the spread of the deadly virus. Last week IDS along with our partners at the
International Rescue Committee and Crown Agents launched the Humanitarian
Learning Centre - all part of our ongoing
commitment to bring together operational learning with academic insights to
support people in the aftermath of disasters, emergencies and conflict.

The panel I chaired on improving
humanitarian outcomes with evidence included people who were both doing
research and actively trying to have a real effect on how agencies and governments
respond to crisis. The recurring issue seemed to be the need to work in close
partnership with governments, district level officials, humanitarian agencies
and the effected communities in order for learning to be put into practice. It
was also clear that it is not always about unearthing new evidence but simply
brokering existing knowledge - such as
in the case of the Ebola platform that made available a body of long term
research.

It is clearly very challenging to
overcome inertia and deal with the normal slow pace of change in governments
and large institutions in the midst of a fast changing and unpredictable humanitarian
environment. Donors, agencies and government fail on many occasions to invest
in the new approaches that have been recommended by those conducting rigorous
research. In international development evidence use behaviours and partnerships
can take a long time to take effect. Just consider the
success of Bangladesh’s evidence based approach to tackling extreme poverty
- the result of decades of investment in research partnerships. But as the
international community scramble to respond to the devastation caused by
hurricane Irma and plan support of the persecuted Rohingya in Myanmar some of
the crucial partnerships are more likely to be 4 weeks than 40 years old.

For some on the panel the word
advocacy kept coming up. It is not a word one hears much at academic
conferences and it is certainly not the term used in donors’ research uptake
guidance. However there seemed to be some consensus around the idea that
humanitarian learning needs to be more dynamically promoted. ‘Diffusion’ as the
r2hc uptake guidance recommended seemed to suggest something rather benign and
slow paced. However advocacy always raises thorny issues around research
objectivity, independence and academic rigour. In my view if we want to close
the gap between evidence of what works and what actually gets done we need to
challenge the pernicious ideas that: a) research made accessible,
understandable and communicated to key decision makers in a timely manner will automatically
lead to positive change, and b) that advocacy is incompatible with high quality
research.

Let’s take a) first. Evidence is
one very small part of how and why change happens. It is not sufficient to
prove with rigorous research that another more effective approach is possible
and communicate this to key stakeholders. Political processes, political
expediency, money, individual personalities, ideology and the capacity to
actually understand and use evidence and make changes are all far more
important than the data itself. Of course there is lots we can do to strengthen
the links between research and policy. These mostly require long term
investment in knowledge management systems, relationships, networks, policy
engagement and the capacity of researchers, practitioners and policy actors to
work better together. The ESRC DFID Impact Initiative for International
Development Research have set up an online Impact Lab that
provides some good tips for development researchers and donors in these areas.

Then we come to the dreaded ‘A’
word. I reject that there has to be a compromise between engagement with policy
and research rigour. I’d argue that at the sharp end of the development and humanitarian
sectors where lives and livelihoods are at stake one actually compliments the
other. Advocacy driven networks enable dynamic timely partnerships to emerge.
Research is co-designed, co-constructed and co-communicated. Advocacy processes,
whether aimed at influencing your own agency or partners (a great mentor of
mine and veteran NGO campaigner once said that two thirds of advocacy was
always internal) or governments, pave the way for deeper engagement with
communities and civil society. This was nicely demonstrated by the Hunger and Nutrition Commitment Index. The
methodology was rigorous and research peer reviewed but it was developed in
close partnership with NGOs and the under-nutrition movement. It was unashamedly
designed as an advocacy tool. Reflecting on it we came
to the conclusion that a perceived choice between supporting advocacy movements
with research or producing high quality evidence is an entirely false dichotomy.

So I hope those seeking to
enhance humanitarian work with knowledge and learning will embrace advocacy
approaches. Perhaps it is the humanitarians and not the development wonks who
will finally manage to add the discipline of ‘knowledge advocacy’ to the plethora
of methodological approaches recommended in tool kits and guidelines on
research uptake and evidence informed policy making.